324°
EXPIRED
AMD FX8320 for £100.69 Sold by Dealz uk and Fulfilled by Amazon.
AMD FX8320 for £100.69 Sold by Dealz uk and Fulfilled by Amazon.

AMD FX8320 for £100.69 Sold by Dealz uk and Fulfilled by Amazon.

Buy forBuy forBuy for£100.69
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Sold by Dealz uk and Fulfilled by Amazon. Not buying personally at moment- waiting until it goes under £100- but cheapest yet I think.

cpubenchmark.net/cpu…ore
- kencol

43 Comments

Good processor, managed to overclock mine, and great value for money for video editing and 3d modelling work.

Just make sure you have a decent motherboard for it or expect some throttling. Good value processor!

Edited by: "rikkif1990" 26th Jun 2014

Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter nights.
If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone.

Have you ever seen a 3 legged dog running around a park/field and been impressed by how quick the little fella can still move even though its severeley disadvantaged... then a dog with four legs come trotting past without half the effort or energy required leaving poor old tripod slowly bounding about.. and you think poor tripod he was once like that, now hes just happy he can still run around the park even if it does take him longer and uses more energy to get to the same place slightly slower.

upperdecker1

Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter … Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter nights.If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone.Have you ever seen a 3 legged dog running around a park/field and been impressed by how quick the little fella can still move even though its severeley disadvantaged... then a dog with four legs come trotting past without half the effort or energy required leaving poor old tripod slowly bounding about.. and you think poor tripod he was once like that, now hes just happy he can still run around the park even if it does take him longer and uses more energy to get to the same place slightly slower.



Wow you really have something against AMD. Why would I pay a lot more for something that does the job just as easy? I have never had a single problem with AMD. My processessor does not get excessivly hot, and is great on energy usuage thanks to AMDs program which reduces CPU power when it is not needed.

SamboH

[quote=upperdecker1] Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on … [quote=upperdecker1] Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter nights.If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone.Have you ever seen a 3 legged dog running around a park/field and been impressed by how quick the little fella can still move even though its severeley disadvantaged... then a dog with four legs come trotting past without half the effort or energy required leaving poor old tripod slowly bounding about.. and you think poor tripod he was once like that, now hes just happy he can still run around the park even if it does take him longer and uses more energy to get to the same place slightly slower.



I like AMD and hope they sort there stuff out and can compete with Intel again one day, the days of the old Athlon
XP CPU's were great times when they had Intel on the ropes, especially when Intel released the prescott P4!.. and they lost it somehow and have been treading water for years now reusing the same poor core design instead of moving forwards like Intel did.

I hated switching to Intel as like you said why pay more, but then if I look back at all the AMD upgrades I bought over the years and what that cost me.. if I had bought an I5 or I7 back then I would still be running a CPU that was better or just as capable as what AMD can offer now.
It really is like chalk and cheese when you switch over, I didnt think the impact would be that much but it really is a huge difference in performace per £/watt/energy/heeat output.
I still have an x6 1090t here which I thought hey why not make a cheap machine that I can use for running my VM's on as it was a great CPU for that kind of thing, so bought a cheapish Asrock AMD board that supported 125w cpu.. it can't even regulate the power properly enough to keep it stable at stock clocks due to how much it spikes when switching states with turbo core and its various power saving c states causing BSOD's unless i set the voltage manually or underclock the cpu.

I look forward to what AMD produce in the future now that they have the guy responsible for the K7 K8 line of CPU's back at AMD and look to be finally giving up on the severely cripled CMT based CPU design and going for the SMT style Intel use again.
But this is a long way off yet unfortunately.
I certainly wont be upgrading my Intel CPU thats for sure (unless I can snag an I7 ivy bridge in a deal at some point) as there wont be anything that it suddenly cant cope with very well in the next year or two, unlike AMD's terrible single core performance and what they had to do to even try and compete on multi core performance with Intel, more cores, more heat more power more GHZ.

The day AMD can match Intel again I will jump ship without hesitation. Intel having a monopoly is bad and hopefully AMD snagging the deal with Microsoft and Sony for Xbone and PS4 can keep them in the game long enough to get back up to speed.

upperdecker1

I like AMD and hope they sort there stuff out and can compete with Intel … I like AMD and hope they sort there stuff out and can compete with Intel again one day, the days of the old Athlon XP CPU's were great times when they had Intel on the ropes, especially when Intel released the prescott P4!.. and they lost it somehow and have been treading water for years now reusing the same poor core design instead of moving forwards like Intel did.I hated switching to Intel as like you said why pay more, but then if I look back at all the AMD upgrades I bought over the years and what that cost me.. if I had bought an I5 or I7 back then I would still be running a CPU that was better or just as capable as what AMD can offer now. It really is like chalk and cheese when you switch over, I didnt think the impact would be that much but it really is a huge difference in performace per £/watt/energy/heeat output.I still have an x6 1090t here which I thought hey why not make a cheap machine that I can use for running my VM's on as it was a great CPU for that kind of thing, so bought a cheapish Asrock AMD board that supported 125w cpu.. it can't even regulate the power properly enough to keep it stable at stock clocks due to how much it spikes when switching states with turbo core and its various power saving c states causing BSOD's unless i set the voltage manually or underclock the cpu.I look forward to what AMD produce in the future now that they have the guy responsible for the K7 K8 line of CPU's back at AMD and look to be finally giving up on the severely cripled CMT based CPU design and going for the SMT style Intel use again.But this is a long way off yet unfortunately.I certainly wont be upgrading my Intel CPU thats for sure (unless I can snag an I7 ivy bridge in a deal at some point) as there wont be anything that it suddenly cant cope with very well in the next year or two, unlike AMD's terrible single core performance and what they had to do to even try and compete on multi core performance with Intel, more cores, more heat more power more GHZ.The day AMD can match Intel again I will jump ship without hesitation. Intel having a monopoly is bad and hopefully AMD snagging the deal with Microsoft and Sony for Xbone and PS4 can keep them in the game long enough to get back up to speed.



I think you're being a little too harsh on AMD. Intel are definitely the leader when it comes to single threaded performance and gaming. However, if you are video rendering, 3D rendering, encoding or generally using apps that love cores (VMs!) AMD are hard to ignore as in these applications an AMD 8 core CPU will excel. The power consumption increase is marginal, we are talking a few pounds extra to run each year, it's not a big deal!

I currently have a 3570K powering my VM server and while it runs nicely, I totally begrudge using it for this purpose, as in my eyes it's a decent gaming setup and would be better suited for a second PC for the bedroom. I have a spare AMD FX socket motherboard knocking around from mining that I plan to use as my new VM lab and will definitely be jumping on one of these in a couple of months, they are great value for money and ideal suited for my use.

Sounds like there is an issue with your Asrock motherboard, it shouldn't be behaving like that.

Man if someone made a Mini ITX AM3+ mobo I'd be all over this.

upperdecker1

Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter … Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter nights.If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone.Have you ever seen a 3 legged dog running around a park/field and been impressed by how quick the little fella can still move even though its severeley disadvantaged... then a dog with four legs come trotting past without half the effort or energy required leaving poor old tripod slowly bounding about.. and you think poor tripod he was once like that, now hes just happy he can still run around the park even if it does take him longer and uses more energy to get to the same place slightly slower.



Yeah great idea, let's all abandon AMD so they go bust and Intel can monopolies the market!
They won't abuse that position will they!!!

This is a great CPU for users who don't game/crunch all the time so the higher MAX current draw isn't a big issue

I think there should be a HotUKDeals sticky/FAQ for every AMD/Intel deal thread. It's the same stuff every time, over and over. I'll try and summarise and save some time.

* Yes Intel have single threaded performance crown, but performance per £ is what most people care about.

* Multithreading is where AMD excels, just to add to this list by 2stepSteve of uses, games are starting to use more cores, and also compiling code loves more cores. It is also a solid argument that if an application is not running multithreaded, then performance is not an issue for it.

* Power consumption, doesn't matter, talking pounds a year, unless you're gonna be bitcoin mining 24/7.

* Heat, not an issue, unless you're running flat out 24/7. My 6300 runs at 30~C, with a midrange £20 cooler.

Edited by: "NitrousUK" 30th Jun 2014

Greta processor, and capable of running 2 x R9 290x.. but I think a 6300 is better £/performance

NitrousUK

I think there should be a HotUKDeals sticky/FAQ for every AMD/Intel deal … I think there should be a HotUKDeals sticky/FAQ for every AMD/Intel deal thread. It's the same stuff every time, over and over. I'll try and summarise and save some time.* Yes Intel have single threaded performance crown, but performance per £ is what most people care about.* Multithreading is where AMD excels, just to add to this list by 2stepSteve of uses, games are starting to use more cores, and also compiling code loves more cores. It is also a solid argument that if an application is not running multithreaded, then performance is not an issue for it.* Power consumption, doesn't matter, talking pounds a year, unless you're gonna be bitcoin mining 24/7.* Heat, not an issue, unless you're running flat out 24/7. My 6300 runs at 30~C, with a midrange £20 cooler.



You can summarise all you want but when you're not making a good argument is doesn't matter.

Price/performance Intel still wins out.

Highly threaded tasks AMD does well, but even in highly threaded games like Civ V, a properly N threaded game, they still fall behind

anandtech.com/sho…p/7

techreport.com/r.x…gif

techreport.com/r.x…gif

Buying a processor based on projected possible future performance is pretty silly. On top of that, the 8350 isn't an 8 core chip like the ones in the consoles. In terms of how it handles loads, it something in between a 4 Core/8 Thread processor and a dedicated 8 core processor. It does have 8 physical cores, but each pair of 2 cores shares L2 cache.

Given that the 8350 generally outperforms the i5s when it comes to n-threaded tasks like encoding or compressing, you can see how it's a lot more complicated than "well more cores being used so 8 core is better".

Power consumption is something that yes per year isn't going to break the bank, but the up front cost will be less. You could run an OC'd i5 and a 280X off 500w, I wouldn't do that with 125w TDP 83xx chip.

As for your 6300, 30c isn't under load.

Leftfield_2k2

Yeah great idea, let's all abandon AMD so they go bust and Intel can … Yeah great idea, let's all abandon AMD so they go bust and Intel can monopolies the market!They won't abuse that position will they!!!This is a great CPU for users who don't game/crunch all the time so the higher MAX current draw isn't a big issue



Buying generally inferior products on that rationale is laughable.

Is this better than the 8150?

kharma45

You can summarise all you want but when you're not making a good argument … You can summarise all you want but when you're not making a good argument is doesn't matter.Price/performance Intel still wins out. Highly threaded tasks AMD does well, but even in highly threaded games like Civ V, a properly N threaded game, they still fall behindhttp://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p/7http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/civv-lgv-nr.gifhttp://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/civv-lgv.gifBuying a processor based on projected possible future performance is pretty silly. On top of that, the 8350 isn't an 8 core chip like the ones in the consoles. In terms of how it handles loads, it something in between a 4 Core/8 Thread processor and a dedicated 8 core processor. It does have 8 physical cores, but each pair of 2 cores shares L2 cache. Given that the 8350 generally outperforms the i5s when it comes to n-threaded tasks like encoding or compressing, you can see how it's a lot more complicated than "well more cores being used so 8 core is better".Power consumption is something that yes per year isn't going to break the bank, but the up front cost will be less. You could run an OC'd i5 and a 280X off 500w, I wouldn't do that with 125w TDP 83xx chip.As for your 6300, 30c isn't under load.



Whenever this price/performance has come up before, people quote Intel benchmarks showing a 50% lead, to which people point out that the intel CPU costs 100% more. Can you provide some evidence that Intel wins price/performance?

As far as I have seen from the many debates on here, intel only has a significant lead in single threaded performance, which as I said before, is not nearly as important as multi-threaded, as if performance was important, the programmers would have bothered making it multi-threaded, as that's the only way to get significant performance gains.

Sharing L2 cache may not be a performance disadvantage, yes you probably end up with less in size, but may well get a performance boost from not having to rely on a transport between caches to maintain coherency.

Yes, my 6300 is 30~ idle, but 40~ under load. My point was that computers aren't running 24/7 most of the time, as I said, and heat isn't an issue at that time.
Edited by: "NitrousUK" 30th Jun 2014

jojow158

Is this better than the 8150?



A bit, but it's not worth ploughing more money into AM3+.
Edited by: "kharma45" 30th Jun 2014

NitrousUK

Whenever this price/performance has come up before, people quote Intel … Whenever this price/performance has come up before, people quote Intel benchmarks showing a 50% lead, to which people point out that the intel CPU costs 100% more. Can you provide some evidence that Intel wins price/performance?As far as I have seen from the many debates on here, intel only has a significant lead in single threaded performance, which as I said before, is not nearly as important as multi-threaded, as if performance was important, the programmers would have bothered making it multi-threaded, as that's the only way to get significant performance gains.Sharing L2 cache may not be a performance disadvantage, yes you probably end up with less in size, but may well get a performance boost from not having to rely on a transport between caches to maintain coherency.Yes, my 6300 is 30~ idle, but 40~ under load. My point was that computers aren't running 24/7 most of the time, as I said, and heat isn't an issue at that time.



Your point about it not mattering as much when games are multithreaded. Go look at the Civ V benches, where it's a properly N threaded game and not tailored for AMD or Intel.

You'll also get worse frame times with an AMD CPU in CPU bound games

techreport.com/r.x…png

techreport.com/r.x…png

techreport.com/r.x…gif

techreport.com/r.x…gif

techreport.com/r.x…gif

When a processor with low IPC and per-thread performance is taxed, like these FX chips, this is when you'll experience chugging, or stuttery gameplay. We've all felt it, everyone knows it's annoying and it's why so many people genuinely enjoy that constant performance you get on a lot of console games.

To top it off, this sort of issue isn't captured very well at all in FPS benchmarks hence the need for the charts in the links above which help show what is going on with every single frame during a benchmark.

For quick reference, 8.3ms = 120 FPS, 16.6ms = 60 FPS, 33.3ms = 30 FPS, 66.6ms = 15 FPS.

kharma45

Your point about it not mattering as much when games are multithreaded. … Your point about it not mattering as much when games are multithreaded. Go look at the Civ V benches, where it's a properly N threaded game and not tailored for AMD or Intel. You'll also get worse frame times with an AMD CPU in CPU bound gameshttp://techreport.com/r.x/core-i7-4770k/c3-4770.pnghttp://techreport.com/r.x/core-i7-4770k/fc3-4770.pnghttp://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-intel.gifhttp://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/arkham-amd.gifhttp://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-intel.gifWhen a processor with low IPC and per-thread performance is taxed, like these FX chips, this is when you'll experience chugging, or stuttery gameplay. We've all felt it, everyone knows it's annoying and it's why so many people genuinely enjoy that constant performance you get on a lot of console games.To top it off, this sort of issue isn't captured very well at all in FPS benchmarks hence the need for the charts in the links above which help show what is going on with every single frame during a benchmark.For quick reference, 8.3ms = 120 FPS, 16.6ms = 60 FPS, 33.3ms = 30 FPS, 66.6ms = 15 FPS.



I appreciate linking to the benchmarks, but I can't see one that's AMD vs Intel for the same game, in a clear comparison. There's two comparing same game, but the graphs are all mashed on top of each other and it's not clear how different they are.

If I look at the CIv benchmarks, I can see intel getting leads of 40-60%, but when I google those CPUs, they are £200-600.


Edited by: "NitrousUK" 30th Jun 2014

NitrousUK

I appreciate linking to the benchmarks, but I can't see one that's AMD vs … I appreciate linking to the benchmarks, but I can't see one that's AMD vs Intel for the same game. There's two, but the graphs are all mashed on top of each other and it's not clear how different they are.



These two are probably the easiest to translate

techreport.com/r.x…gif

techreport.com/r.x…gif

Basically the lower the frame time the smoother the experience. When a frame is rendered, it takes a certain amount of time to do so. That time is measured as the latency, from 0, to render and display the frame. That's what these graphs show.

The same testing methodology is what got AMD to fix their GPU drivers. For so long there was the idea that Nvidia's stuff was smoother, and by using this we could finally prove that was the case as AMD had problems with runt frames. I think it was 12.11 driver release that fixed it for single GPUs, and they've almost got it nailed for Crossfire.

NitrousUK

If I look at the CIv benchmarks, I can see intel getting leads of 40-60%, … If I look at the CIv benchmarks, I can see intel getting leads of 40-60%, but when I google those CPUs, they are £200-600.



Not for an i5, not even the range topping one

amazon.co.uk/Int…+i5

Edited by: "kharma45" 30th Jun 2014

kharma45

These two are probably the easiest to translate … These two are probably the easiest to translate http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-intel.gifhttp://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-intel.gifBasically the lower the frame time the smoother the experience. When a frame is rendered, it takes a certain amount of time to do so. That time is measured as the latency, from 0, to render and display the frame. That's what these graphs show.The same testing methodology is what got AMD to fix their GPU drivers. For so long there was the idea that Nvidia's stuff was smoother, and by using this we could finally prove that was the case as AMD had problems with runt frames. I think it was 12.11 driver release that fixed it for single GPUs, and they've almost got it nailed for Crossfire. Not for an i5, not even the range topping onehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Intel-Graphics-BX80646I74770-Generation-Technology/dp/B00CO8TBOW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404134897&sr=8-1&keywords=core+i5



Frame time seems a bit of a sensitive measurement, given what the OS could be doing during the game. Some statistics on distribution would probably be a better way of making sense of the spikes and averages.

Given an i5-4670K and an FX-8350, those could be used for people to make a comparison to decide for themselves.
i7-4670K appears to be about £163~, FX-8350 for £102~.

Comparisons can be found here:
i5-4670K vs FX-8350
i5-4670K vs FX-8350

NitrousUK

Frame time seems a bit of a sensitive measurement, given what the OS … Frame time seems a bit of a sensitive measurement, given what the OS could be doing during the game. Some statistics on distribution would probably be a better way of making sense of the spikes and averages.Given an i5-4670K and an FX-8350, those could be used for people to make a comparison to decide for themselves.i7-4670K appears to be about £163~, FX-8350 for £102~.Comparisons can be found here: i5-4670K vs FX-8350i5-4670K vs FX-8350



They're sensitve for a reason, they're accurate. FPS isn't wholly accurate and masks problems. The OS isn't causing these spikes, and sites like the Tech Report have very refined and solid methodologies for testing.

Reading through this should help with understanding why frame latency is so important techreport.com/rev…pus

People often complained about stutter in Crossfire (and SLI to an extent too). Whilst FPSs seemed fine the game still chugged.
Again, using frame times we can easily visualise why

http://www.pcper.com/files/review/2013-03-25/Crysis3_1920x1080_PLOT_2.png

As for those two sites you've linked, they're the reason people end up buying poor CPUs. They're terrible. Stick to reputable comparisons on the likes of the Tech Report and PC Perspective.

kharma45

A bit, but it's not worth ploughing more money into AM3+.


Agreed. I would wait for a DDR4 interface - that should provide a little bit of a boost especially for CPUs with many cores.

It is a shame that AMD is working on two different platforms, when neither is competitive.

MrPuddington

Agreed. I would wait for a DDR4 interface - that should provide a little … Agreed. I would wait for a DDR4 interface - that should provide a little bit of a boost especially for CPUs with many cores. It is a shame that AMD is working on two different platforms, when neither is competitive.



DDR4 is a long way off for most consumers. You're talking 2016 at this stage. Plus DDR4 will be expensive when it launches, and I doubt the extra bandwidth offered by it is going to make any difference.

Banned

If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still … If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone..


I used to Prefer Intel and last year I would have agreed .. I have owned over 18 CPU's and since 2010 I have seen Two expensive Intel Chips Fail . I have since been biased against Intel since they cost more and leave you with motherboards that can not be upgraded

AMD on the other hand, I have never a CPU fail , they also offer more freedom at a better price . If you are switched on about tech , OC , Cooling and Case modding , definitely go AMD

If you know nothing go Intel

Edited by: "90Ninety" 30th Jun 2014

90Ninety

I used to Prefer Intel and last year I would have agreed .. I have … I used to Prefer Intel and last year I would have agreed .. I have owned over 18 CPU's and since 2010 I have seen Two expensive Intel Chips Fail . I have since been biased against Intel since they cost more and leave you with motherboards that can not be upgraded AMD on the other hand, I have never a CPU fail , they also offer more freedom at a better price . If you are switched on about tech , OC , Cooling and Case modding , definitely go AMD If you know nothing go Intel



I can't tell if this is bad sarcasm or not.

kharma45

They're sensitve for a reason, they're accurate. FPS isn't wholly … They're sensitve for a reason, they're accurate. FPS isn't wholly accurate and masks problems. The OS isn't causing these spikes, and sites like the Tech Report have very refined and solid methodologies for testing.Reading through this should help with understanding why frame latency is so important http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpusPeople often complained about stutter in Crossfire (and SLI to an extent too). Whilst FPSs seemed fine the game still chugged.Again, using frame times we can easily visualise whyAs for those two sites you've linked, they're the reason people end up buying poor CPUs. They're terrible. Stick to reputable comparisons on the likes of the Tech Report and PC Perspective.



The raw data they present is not what I would call accurate. Statistics on the distribution would be accurate. They've just piled a load of random data points into a graph, which is totally unsuitable for the data. A box plot would have been much better. The OS could do a lot inbetween a frame, it could run a background service, allocate/deallocate memory, swap memory to disk it deems unnecessary, etc. The data will be different every time you run it, so for that reason alone it is not accurate. The only accuracy is in the overall trend from the data. They should have presented the raw numbers for people who know how to make sense of it.

The links I gave were compilations of benchmarks, which should give an overall trend, rather than relying on one source and one test.

How the hell is this a deal ? I've been tracking it in my amazon basket for "months" . It hasn't drifted more than £2 or 3 pound between £102 and £106 . Its been this price or similar for ages

NitrousUK

The raw data they present is not what I would call accurate. Statistics … The raw data they present is not what I would call accurate. Statistics on the distribution would be accurate. They've just piled a load of random data points into a graph, which is totally unsuitable for the data. A box plot would have been much better. The OS could do a lot inbetween a frame, it could run a background service, allocate/deallocate memory, swap memory to disk it deems unnecessary, etc. The data will be different every time you run it, so for that reason alone it is not accurate. The only accuracy is in the overall trend from the data. They should have presented the raw numbers for people who know how to make sense of it.The links I gave were compilations of benchmarks, which should give an overall trend, rather than relying on one source and one test.



The methodology used is sound. Take the time to read through it all, and the various other articles out there on frame times.

techreport.com/rev…ing

techreport.com/blo…ods

techreport.com/blo…nts

There is a reason most big sites have followed the lead of TR and PC Per.

I also fail to see why a box plot would be a good way to display data over time.

'They should have presented the raw numbers for people who know how to make sense of it.'

These are the raw numbers and interpreting the data is not complicated. Does using 99th percentile make it easier to digest?

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/skyim-99th.gif

or time spent beyond x ms?

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/skyrim-beyond-16.gif

kharma45

The methodology used is sound. Take the time to read through it all, and … The methodology used is sound. Take the time to read through it all, and the various other articles out there on frame times.http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarkinghttp://techreport.com/blog/24133/as-the-second-turns-the-web-digests-our-game-testing-methodshttp://techreport.com/blog/24247/as-the-second-turns-further-developmentsThere is a reason most big sites have followed the lead of TR and PC Per.I also fail to see why a box plot would be a good way to display data over time. 'They should have presented the raw numbers for people who know how to make sense of it.'These are the raw numbers and interpreting the data is not complicated. Does using 99th percentile make it easier to digest?or time spent beyond x ms?



Frame times are fine, but not individually, you need the distributions. Those graphs you show are much better than the first graph, as they deal with the distribution. However I don't see an FX-8320 in there?

Benchmarks for individual programs and and individual games aside, a relatively quick way to additionally help you choose between AMD (FX) and Intel is to take a look at the latest motherboard features on offer on both platforms at your budget point. Also, if you consider in advance the size of the computer you want to build, with Intel, for instance, you are spoiled for choice with small M-ITX motherboards that can still handle a midrange overclock, and there is a fairly large range of performance overclock relatively small M-ATX builds.

NitrousUK

Frame times are fine, but not individually, you need the distributions. … Frame times are fine, but not individually, you need the distributions. Those graphs you show are much better than the first graph, as they deal with the distribution. However I don't see an FX-8320 in there?



You'd be right, it's only the 8150. My mistake! Here's the 8350

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-beyond-16.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-99th.gif

Load more through the link as well as productivity ones. Not all gaming focused. techreport.com/rev…wed

kharma45

You'd be right, it's only the 8150. My mistake! Here's the 8350Load more … You'd be right, it's only the 8150. My mistake! Here's the 8350Load more through the link as well as productivity ones. Not all gaming focused. http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed



The review seems to confirm what I already thought. Intel dominates single threaded, but not by a margin that is proportional to it's cost, eg 30% more for 60% more cost type of thing. Some games, eg Battlefield 3, puts it up alongside much more expensive Intels.
And the AMD dominates multithreaded against any Intel CPUs near it's price bracket.

NitrousUK

The review seems to confirm what I already thought. Intel dominates … The review seems to confirm what I already thought. Intel dominates single threaded, but not by a margin that is proportional to it's cost, eg 30% more for 60% more cost type of thing. Some games, eg Battlefield 3, puts it up alongside much more expensive Intels.And the AMD dominates multithreaded against any Intel CPUs near it's price bracket.



The thing to note about BF3 is that SP is not a CPU dependent title, only the MP is.

For highly threaded productivity tasks yes the 8350 is a good choice, but that's not what most people will sit and do in the real world. The Intel is the better all rounder, and you will have an upgrade path on a modern CPU socket.

kharma45

The thing to note about BF3 is that SP is not a CPU dependent title, only … The thing to note about BF3 is that SP is not a CPU dependent title, only the MP is.For highly threaded productivity tasks yes the 8350 is a good choice, but that's not what most people will sit and do in the real world. The Intel is the better all rounder, and you will have an upgrade path on a modern CPU socket.



There isn't much, beyond synthetic benchmarks, that only use one thread/process. Even browsers like Chrome/Firefox use multi threading/processes, as well as of course the OS itself.

people talking about not gaming on these chips, I really get that comment. I have the bigger brother 8350 and its a great chip and good value in comparison to its i5/i7 counter parts. I use mine for 1200p gaming and desktop Virtual Machining which with 8 cores @ 4ghz is great for. Yea the stock fan is bad but any after market fan with AS5 or similar and it will keep the noise/heat down.

upperdecker1

Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter … Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter nights.If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone.Have you ever seen a 3 legged dog running around a park/field and been impressed by how quick the little fella can still move even though its severeley disadvantaged... then a dog with four legs come trotting past without half the effort or energy required leaving poor old tripod slowly bounding about.. and you think poor tripod he was once like that, now hes just happy he can still run around the park even if it does take him longer and uses more energy to get to the same place slightly slower.



Indeed... Winter IS coming!

This processor will help protect from whitewalkers, wildlings and all sorts of other nasties. Buy it! Now!

blinking 'ell! came on for a quick nosey and lost 20 minutes somewhere... im looking at the octa core route for a budget gaming rig (nothing too heavy mainly race sims) any suggestions for good mobo?

I have just sold my 4.4ghz 8320 and replaced it with a non k i7 3770. The difference is huge in cpu intensive games in borderlands 2 my min fps was 26 now its 50. Skyrim would sometimes go under 60fps now never does. But far cry and battlefield very little difference. If you want to go amd get the fx 6300 its very good for the money this is far too close to a i5 in terms of money which are far better for gaming.

upperdecker1

Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter … Winter is coming this will help keep you warm on those cold winter nights.If you're still upgrading AMD stuff sell it on Ebay whilst its still worth something and change over to intel, the increase in performance coupled with the drop in energy usage and noise/heat output is worth it alone.Have you ever seen a 3 legged dog running around a park/field and been impressed by how quick the little fella can still move even though its severeley disadvantaged... then a dog with four legs come trotting past without half the effort or energy required leaving poor old tripod slowly bounding about.. and you think poor tripod he was once like that, now hes just happy he can still run around the park even if it does take him longer and uses more energy to get to the same place slightly slower.



The difference is very little in the real world except that the Intel chip costs £100 more Intel just hit a brick wall on speed and i would imagine they are waiting for AMD to innovate the next processor design, such as, On board memory controllers, AMD64 and soon hybrid ARM and x86 to name but a few. AMD chips also seem to be usable alot longer. Consoles also use AMD not intel because Intel stuff is junk very quickly. 8 Cores will be serving you for a while as software improves multi threading.

faster4233

The difference is very little in the real world except that the Intel … The difference is very little in the real world except that the Intel chip costs £100 more Intel just hit a brick wall on speed and i would imagine they are waiting for AMD to innovate the next processor design, such as, On board memory controllers, AMD64 and soon hybrid ARM and x86 to name but a few. AMD chips also seem to be usable alot longer. Consoles also use AMD not intel because Intel stuff is junk very quickly. 8 Cores will be serving you for a while as software improves multi threading.



I laughed out loud when I read "Intel stuff is junk quickly".
Thanks.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text